Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the lesbian couple broke up why doesn't the state go after the noncustodial (former) partner? Or is this a clever way couples can avoid support obligations?
It's KANSAS.
The PROGRESSIVE response would be to actually go after the other half of the lesbian couple.
The CONSERVATIVE response is to ignore the existence of the lesbian couple's committment, which works in favor of both the deadbeat other half of that couple, AND the whackjobs who would seek to de-legitimize the gay couple's partnership and parenting.
Unfortunately, child support is not something you can contract away obligation for, because it is the child's right to collect, not the parent's right to collect. Here's where the law is at fault:
Both women adopted the girl, although they had to file for adoption separately because the state does not recognize same-sex unions, the newspaper said. This means that the state also cannot collect child support from same-sex parents.
Well, my social views are liberal but this is pretty stupid IMO. ON THE OTHER HAND, if you are conservative enough to not want more tax dollars supporting those who cannot support themselves, then maybe a court will be "fixing" this for you. Not draining your tax dollars, but getting "private" dollars for child support instead. And most interesting, Guy, that you are able to blame liberals no matter how this turns out. Take my tax money--you are a liberal. Make an individual pay for making a stupid mistake---you are a liberal. In other words, no matter what the outcome, if you don't like it, it's another liberal at work!!
You can smack your head all you want .... but if you cannot figure this out on your own without me having to explain it to you, you aren't sharp enough to understand the explanation But just in case there is someone following the discourse who actually can understand .... the fact is, it is the brain dead liberal lunacy that has pushed this nonsense about abnormal behavior being normal ... including the appeasement of homosexuals who want to pretend to be normal families raising children, when their fundamental sexual behavior precludes children. So the artificial means to create normalcy out of the abnormal rolls out, in either artificial insemination or adoption, and facilitated by idiots who participate by donating sperm so that lesbians can play momma when they ain't pretending to be men ... and a poor child is now the next victim in the center of the madness.
The state, dominated by liberal insanity, encourages this nonsense only to find itself with another single mother knocking on the door for public assistance (WHILE SUCH PUBLIC ASSISTANCE IS ALSO A LIBERAL POLICY PROBLEM ITSELF) this time, an artificially inseminated lesbian that would otherwise not have a child she couldn't support!!! Get it????
The whole damned thing is a self induced cluster F**.. which defines the liberal mindset in all it's delirious ideological manifestations. The solution that the state devised here is just ANOTHER example in a chain of erroneous demonstrations of supreme idiocy for failing to come to the most logical conclusion ... that the two mommies should be required to assume the responsibility for the welfare of that child that they just "had to have, because they have rights, you know", no, no, no ... that would actually make too much sense .... no, instead they decide that the stupid slob that donated the sperm is on the hook for child support for the next 15 years.
The entire debacle is, from start to finish ... drowning in liberal lunacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
And my liberal social views are mostly--it ain't none of my business what other people do. Just do it responsibly so it doesn't mix the rest of us up in it. That's actually old-fashioned conservatism, before modern conservatives decided to stick their noses into people's private affairs while at the same time bemoaning government's intrusion into their own lives.
You see ... your thought patterns are totally running in reverse. The true "conservative" ideal is that 1) government has no business stealing my money to give someone else! Bam!! That ends the issue of the state having to decide who to force to cough up the money to pay for that child ... when the two persons who went to the extremes necessary to involve a child in their union should be 100% responsible and no one else ..... 2) marriage and families are reserved for those who can actually PHYSICALLY/BIOLOGICALLY create families, which according to human biological design, requires a man and woman ... not two men ... not two women. 3) Government should not be involved in private unions/marriages at all, be it heterosexual, or homosexual, but such demands for the government to be involved comes from the liberals who want homosexual marriage legislated in order to receive the marriage perks that shouldn't even exist in the first place. Get it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Because we have such a litigious society it is best to have a contract, signed by all, witnessed by about 200 people on just what rights and responsibilities exist or do not exist to both donor and donee. When a contract is absent, courts can do stupid things that they NEVER should have been called upon to do which will displease a lot of people.
So castigate away. I'm quickly learning that right wingers can't budge on social issues and left wingers can't budge on fiscal issues--so what do we have---- CONGRESS.
You cannot legislate personal responsibility or common sense ... but to the liberal ... we require legislation for everything. We need a law regulating every behavior, and every possible outcome resulting from a countless list of possibilities, when all you really need is to demand that people be responsible for their own welfare and their own happiness and their own maintenance.
In this particular case, the problem is simple .... in lieu of not assisting homosexuals in creating children that such relationships are not suitable ... they should be required to support the child created by them. In this case, the two mommies .... only they should be responsible ... not the public ... not the donor of the damned sperm ... if he's responsible ... why not the doctor who performed the insemination? He's more responsible for the creation of the child than the sperm donor ... without the doctor, no baby.
The problem began in this case, with the twisted decision to assist lesbians to have children, which took a minimum of FOUR IDIOTS to create the child. The two idiot lesbians, the numskull with the sperm, and the doctor to make it all work. When a man and a women create a child, the situation is clear ... only two parties are involved, and those two individuals are responsible for caring for and supporting that child ... very simple ... there is no third or fourth party involved.
Eliminate the government and the forced charity mindset that demands that we all must financially support irresponsible people, and the number of irresponsible people will dramatically decrease.
Smart gardeners don't water the weeds, and then wonder why the garden is full of them.
What about common decency? Why isn't the non-mom, who entered into the childbearing scenario willingly, offering to pay support? Talk about deadbeat.
The "non-mom" -- as you disgustingly put it -- was the family breadwinner (the other mom was a stay at home mother). She's now taken very ill and is incapable of working. For a decade she financially supported the couple and their 8 children (7 adopted, 1 sperm-doner) - this includes supporting them after the couple broke up, so she was willing paying support - both child and spousal - until she got sick.
The support issue should be between the 2 parents, NOT the sperm donor.
This will set a bad precedent IMHO.
I see this as an outstanding precedent since homosexuals are so sure that they can reproduce without any real help. Of course, as a lifetime Kansan I usually support the laws of the state and although they don't jail those who live together as homosexuals we haven't been dragged to same sex marriage, yet. I think that this may well be another step backward caused by the same sexers. I got a kick out of the woman talking about progressive movement and Kansas moving backward. I don't remember so much about things like this before progressives made some of their moves and this is certainly a progressive case.
Not in Kansas since we haven't moved that far toward real progressivism yet. Of course, you knew that but just wanted to make something out of your desire.
Not in Kansas since we haven't moved that far toward real progressivism yet. Of course, you knew that but just wanted to make something out of your desire.
Yeah, of course I knew that. The whole point of my comment was to point out if Kansas law treated homosexual couples equally this wouldn't be an issue.
If the lesbian couple broke up why doesn't the state go after the noncustodial (former) partner? Or is this a clever way couples can avoid support obligations?
The one was obviously not a Lesbian if she left the other woman for a man. Lot of confused people. I think all parties involved should be held financially responsable for being stupid. Can't believe the nuts were allowed to adopt the other 7 kids in the first place. I can only imagine how confused these poor kids are going to be when they grow up.
The one was obviously not a Lesbian if she left the other woman for a man. Lot of confused people. I think all parties involved should be held financially responsable for being stupid. Can't believe the nuts were allowed to adopt the other 7 kids in the first place. I can only imagine how confused these poor kids are going to be when they grow up.
Why imagine? If you're really curious, go track their adult children down and find out (their oldest is 25).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But just in case there is someone following the discourse who actually can understand .... the fact is, it is the brain dead liberal lunacy that has pushed this nonsense about abnormal behavior being normal ... including the appeasement of homosexuals who want to pretend to be normal families raising children, when their fundamental sexual behavior precludes children. So the artificial means to create normalcy out of the abnormal rolls out, in either artificial insemination or adoption, and facilitated by idiots who participate by donating sperm so that lesbians can play momma when they ain't pretending to be men ... and a poor child is now the next victim in the center of the madness.
on just what rights and responsibilities exist or do not exist to both donor and donee. When a contract is absent, courts can do stupid things that they NEVER should have been called upon to do which will displease a lot of people.
